Your Beatitude! During your pastoral visit to the United States Ukrainian Parliament established so-called anti-discriminatory amendment to the labour code. Someone called an uncompliant position of Churches, regarding gender question and sexual orientation, almost a prevention to visa-free regime with EU and being stick to ‘Russian world’. How can you comment on it?

To my deepest conviction, reproaches to the religious society about prevention to the EU integration of Ukraine are completely groundless. Here is worth mentioning a common application of WCC and RO about a support of euro- integral striving of Ukrainian people and real European values that was the aim of our visiting Brussels in September, 2013. In fact, to ‘Russian world’ and Moscow ideology are stick those, who dispose European striving as a legalization of immorality, turn Ukrainian faithful against a Christian West and make Russia the only defender of traditional moral values. I want to remind that, exactly, God’s Law, a defence of human’s dignity, a protest against the corruption and a brutal violence brought us to the revolution of Dignity and showed real democratic values, which had built European civilization on these Christian principles.

Criticizing the amendment in the way it was ratified, do Churches risk running upon the danger to be blamed in lenience to the discrimination?

Scriptures, God’s Law and principles of Christian morality do not discriminate anyone. On the contrary, the Word of God and His Commandments are liberating, and guide to a real freedom, keeping watch over human’s dignity. The danger is that, virtually, terms ‘gender identification and sexual orientation’ belong to the so-called gender ideology and become a dangerous precedent for Ukrainian law. Maybe the first step in the technical procedure in getting visa-free regime has been taken, and we still do not know about its results; however the terminological disorientation was inserted, preciously in law.

Talking about the prohibition of the discrimination, personally we suggested refusing these ideological stamps and use a phrase ‘a treatment of sexuality’ that is concordant with the Christian anthropology. So, honestly, a decision was taken not for the benefit of freedom, anti-discrimination and Europe, but for the benefit of a new inhuman and discriminatory gender ideology that was judged with one accord by all catholic bishops during the last Pope’s Synod.

To my mind, in labour code, first of all, it is important to defend father-and motherhood from the discrimination. We see, how a woman’s pregnancy, in conditions of an extreme capitalism can provoke losing a job; and an aggressive business-time and low salary does not let parents to devote their time for children.

Can such a choice harm the Ukrainian society?

It cannot be predicted totally. However it is possible to see an illusion that Europeanization means a ‘release’ from moral rules and church’s presence in a social discourse. This phenomenon is called ‘secularization’.

I hope this kind of legislative choice of parliamentarians will start as a beginning of a meaningful social discussion about a real discrimination, real liberation and responsibility. Ukrainian religious society, in its turn, must be ready for a deep, mutual and open dialogue in order to explain a Christian studying about sexuality without offending anyone but respecting and serving to others.